On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 02:59:57AM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 09:37:44PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 04:04:06PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 01:51:02PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > > > I've asked you to stop it nicely since your baseless claims against me have
> > > > nothing to do with IETF business.
> > >
> > > I warmly invite you to unsubscribe me.
> >
> > Me too. Please unsubscribe me.
>
> There is a header in every message explaining how to unsubscribe.
And most spams have an unsubscribe link.
> > > > Julian Reschke has not been resubscribed to any list after he has
> > > > unsubscribed. His characterization of the facts is false. He has used
> > > > different email addresses:
> > > >
> > > > Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>,
> > > > Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>,
> > > >
> > > > Quite plainly, there is no way to tell different email addresses aren't
> > > > different people.
> >
> > Of course it's true that you can't tell if two different e-mail
> > addresses are or are not used by the same person without first asking
> > that person. Oh, but that's right, Dean doesn't believe in asking
> > first.
>
> Well, most everyone doesn't want to be unsubscribed, and most everyone
> doesn't want dishonest people filtering the IETF email in the first
> place. There was a consensus call, the the consensus was overwhelmingly
> against the PR-action. The ones who do want to unsubscribe are a small
> group of dishonest people. I don't really care to optimize my systems
> to please them; they are dishonest or associated with dishonest people
> who really /are/ spammers. (www.iadl.org/whitehat/whitehat-story.html)
There are two fallacies here:
* That people have not unsubscribed from your list does not indicate that they
wish to remain on it. You lost the ability to make this assertion when you
forcibly subscribed every email you could find on the public IETF lists.
If you remember how this thread started, I explained that I had been
deleting messages from this list for weeks or months, without realising the
nature of the list, or that I had never originally subscribed myself.
* Saying that people who wish to unsubscribe from your list are dishonest
people or are associated with dishonest people, is a self-sealing argument
that attempts to redefine "honest person" as someone who agrees with you.
> Plainly, despite pretentions, Slater isn't really interested in the
> welfare of others: Slater steals resources from the W3C. Not only does
> the W3C have to store his unauthorized, unsolicited, off-topic messages
> which have nothing to do with W3C business and make it hard for people
> to review the W3C archives later, but the W3C has to keep providing
> bandwidth to the people who /read/ the messages. Its the theft that
> keeps on stealing. This is particularly obnoxious because the W3C is a
> non-profit, with limited bandwidth and disk resources.
You harvested my email, by your own admission, from this posting:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0285.html
Which, as you will see, was sent to a W3C list, and was related to an activity
that the W3C is involved with. I believe that my archiving of these emails to
the W3C's www-archive list is a good faith use of their resources.
> But Slater's behavior isn't unusual; most of my critics, particularly
> those who want to silence me, have been up to bad things and are
> actually spammers or scammers themselves. They want to silence me to
> prevent me from discrediting their schemes.
Paranoid delusion.
> > > > > You have a very strange view of how social interaction works. I
> > > > > have made it abundantly clear that your communication with me is
> > > > > unwelcome, and so have a number of other people. Telling me that
> > > > > you will continue because you're not breaking any rules just
> > > > > means that you're behaving like an arse.
> > > >
> > > > Then you can peacefully unsubscribe. Most people don't
> > > > unsubscribe.
> > >
> > > I recognise this argument! It is included at the bottom of most
> > > spams I receive.
> >
> > Indeed. Spam is in the eye of the beholder[0]. I don't care if/that
> > Dean thinks only UCE is spam.
>
> There indeed objective measures of what is spam; spam is not in the eye
> of the beholder.
Well, it's either spam or harassment. Both potentially illegal. Take your pick.
> > > > > I would apologise for replying to your private mail publicly,
> > > > > but ah well...
> > > >
> > > > I see you are still subscribed. Of course, if you didn't want
> > > > that, you know how to unsubscribe. If you persist in off-topic
> > > > tirades, or are really unable to follow mailman instructions, I
> > > > will help you with how to use mailman.
> > >
> > > So the way to stop receiving emails from this list is to complain
> > > about it loudly and in public? Well then, I wholeheartedly encourage
> > > all the other list recipients to similarly speak up and get yourself
> > > unsubscribed!
> >
> > I don't want to have to do that. I want whoever subscribed me (Dean?)
> > to unsubscribe me.
>
> Why? Are you really like Slater? Have you been misled? You mentioned
> that you think we might disagree on patent issues---I don't know how
> that could be. My view is well documented at the progfree.org website,
> and you haven't expressed anything contrary the LPF view on patents.
> Perhaps you've been misled. Don't believe what people try to tell you
> about my views---Ask me if you have a question.
I have explicitly made it explicit that I didn't take a position on this:
I explicitly didn't take a position on this:
I take no position on this.
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Aug/0067.html
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Aug/0074.html
>
> > [0] I just searched for that phrase, and there are quite a few results
> > with that exact phrase. I invite you to look for them and read
> > them. Spam isn't what Dean says it is. Spam is what each of us
> > say it is. Getting subscribed to this list without warning _is_
> > spamming IMO.
>
> Hmm. So your message is spam, I guess---As an ISP, I can sue under
> CAN-SPAM. But of course, your message isn't really spam, and you do know
> better don't you. Indeed, everyone does.
Best,
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater